Global warming fraud heads to court!

[MorganK]

don't you think we might already know that?

so who started this so called science on this man made global warming bit?
seems like the entire cataclysmic event is the fault of CO2...there is so much fuzzy stuff being bandied about..between CO2 and global warming and the greenhouse effect..and water vapour is as big a culprit..but we cannot charge anyone for that.

to all the scientists out there..one question..what was the median maximum temp of the planet between the last 2 ice ages???

The reason you don't hear people talking about water vapour as a cause of climate change like they do about carbon dioxide is that it's controlled by the climate itself. So the only way to change water vapour is to change climate.

These are great videos that look at both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLG...x=0&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVo...x=2&playnext=2

[PinHead]

Did i say he has never published anything? No i didn't, obviously he's published articles and journals on his chosen field which is not what we were talking about. He has never published any peer reviewed article or journal on the disparity between the satellite data and the terrestrial data.

You have not once in this whole post shown any evidence that global climate change is a fake.

and your evidence that it is true is ???

the difference between water vapour and carbon..they both occur naturally but you can somehow put a charge on one of them. the entire man made global warming thing is...money.

We have been through all these scams previously and they all cost a fortune...doom and gloom merchants thrive on the dollars they can bring in...the sky is falling..the sky is falling.

[PinHead]

I also notice you did not attempt to answer my question.

[TimiBoy]

Did i say he has never published anything? No i didn't, obviously he's published articles and journals on his chosen field which is not what we were talking about. He has never published any peer reviewed article or journal on the disparity between the satellite data and the terrestrial data.

You have not once in this whole post shown any evidence that global climate change is a fake.

So what? He's used the information, and had to ensure it's efficacy. He's written (and been published) on just about every subject to do with atmospheric physics, but OK, he hasn't been peer reviewed on THAT subject, so he knows nothing? Top notch logic, that. You keep attacking the man... The guy knows a heap about clouds, feedbacks, Climate Sensitivity, has been published, has demonstrated vastly reduced sensitivity. But the SST's (models) have at best rudimentary use of cloud and Sun behaviour, and when the issues are raised the voices get shrill, even though it has been demonstrated in peer reviewed journals that these two have a serious impact on climate, that they play a major card in both the Radiation Budget, and in Climate Sensitivity.

I have to prove Climate Change is a fake? Hang on, Climate Change is the Hypothesis. It has to be proven true. It has not. Every single conclusion drawn in it's favour relies on one thing, that CO2 somehow reacts with water vapour, to increase the effect of CO2 several times (strong positive feedback). It has not yet been proven, after how many years, how much money? Every time they say "we expect to find this," they don't, so they make up a new expectation. They cannot find the proof, because it doesn't exist! Real world data has shown and continues to show that it is a flawed hypothesis. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, and deny it all you like, the movement against CAGW is in a serious growth phase.

Tim

[nigelr]

Mulder (Maunder?)- "The Truth is Out There"

[finga]

You have not once in this whole post shown any evidence that global climate change is a fake.

Where can it be shown it is indisputably real?
I mean indisputably real from man-made influences and not from normal cyclic influences that have dictated our climate since the big bang.

[Camhawk88]

don't you think we might already know that?

so who started this so called science on this man made global warming bit?
seems like the entire cataclysmic event is the fault of CO2...there is so much fuzzy stuff being bandied about..between CO2 and global warming and the greenhouse effect..and water vapour is as big a culprit..but we cannot charge anyone for that.

to all the scientists out there..one question..what was the median maximum temp of the planet between the last 2 ice ages???

By 'we' you are referrring to yourself and everyone else reading this thread? If so, then yes I would imagine there are a number of people reading this that know that assumptions are fundamental to the scientific method. However you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the concept to the point where I've needed to explain it in triplicate before you have recognised what I have said is correct.

And to answer your one question (I am not a scientist btw)- I did a quick google and found this fantastic site called 'Wikipedia' and according to it-

The last ice age was "a bit bloody nippy."

The second last one was " 'ken freeze the aggats off a brass monkey"

In between the median maximum was " rather pleasant"

Based on this it appears as though, over a larger temporal scale, the earth is warming!!

[finga]

I don't know about all this. It's a bit bloody nippy here.
Must be an ice age.

[MorganK]

What im saying Timiboy is not once in this entire thread have you shown me why it isn't true. You said "Real world data has shown and continues to show that it is a flawed hypothesis". Show me this real world data.

Yes it cannot be proved indisputably real, but the evidence for CG vastly outweighs the evidence against CG.

Pinhead, Yes they do both occur naturally, I dont think you understood what I said so here it is expanded.

There's a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, but water vapor by itself cannot cause global warming. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere isn't warming, you can emit as much water vapor as you want and it will just fall back to the ground as precipitation.

However, if something else is causing the atmosphere to warm, then it can hold more water vapor, and that increase in water vapor will cause further warming.

You are saying that they will only tax CO2, which in most peoples logic, would be the smart thing to do since it is seen as the catalyst.

Now on your question, I cant answer it because I have no idea and I cant find anything on it. All i can find is graphs of the last millennia.

[TimiBoy]

What im saying Timiboy is not once in this entire thread have you shown me why it isn't true. You said "Real world data has shown and continues to show that it is a flawed hypothesis". Show me this real world data.

No Global warming since 1995 - Phil Jones said it. Remember who he is? Yet the models predicted it would warm. Something wrong with the models? Or with the Climate? Hmph, pesky reality, trying to tell us we don't know what's happening.

And please don't go suggesting that because I said this (and didn't provide an exhaustive list) it's the only proof I have, or anything equally Alarmist-bred.

Again, it is not the job of the Skeptic to prove anything. It is the task of the Postulant of a Hypothesis to prove it is true. Thus far no one has been able to prove the base CAGW theory, that CO2 is affected by water vapour to create warming to a level several orders of magnitude above it's normal capacity (virtually zero). On this base the whole CAGW Hypothesis sits, and it has not been proven. Been trying for years. But it keeps on not coming up with the expected results.

Very disappointing for those who would tax us, control us, de-fun us.

Tim

[PinHead]

What im saying Timiboy is not once in this entire thread have you shown me why it isn't true. You said "Real world data has shown and continues to show that it is a flawed hypothesis". Show me this real world data.

Yes it cannot be proved indisputably real, but the evidence for CG vastly outweighs the evidence against CG.

Pinhead, Yes they do both occur naturally, I dont think you understood what I said so here it is expanded.

There's a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, but water vapor by itself cannot cause global warming. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere isn't warming, you can emit as much water vapor as you want and it will just fall back to the ground as precipitation.

However, if something else is causing the atmosphere to warm, then it can hold more water vapor, and that increase in water vapor will cause further warming.

You are saying that they will only tax CO2, which in most peoples logic, would be the smart thing to do since it is seen as the catalyst.

Now on your question, I cant answer it because I have no idea and I cant find anything on it. All i can find is graphs of the last millennia.

water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas..and without greenhouse gases we would all be dead..from freezing.

I believe the planet goes through temp cycles..and as no one can answer my question my assumption is that the planet is just heading a maximum median temp in between ice ages..simple and logical. So until I am proved wrong it must be true as others reckon assumptions are the ducks guts.
So no need to panic..nature is just going on its cycles through the centuries as it always has done and will continu to do and not a damn thing we can do will alter it.

I should now be call Dr Pinhead Phd. (that is short for Pinhead in case you were wondering)

[Tangles]

you guys are speaking in code now, Morgan are you from South Australia, i only thought South Australians could speak like that?

So far we have , and just on this page,

CAGW
CG
SST
CC
CS
CO2

whats CAGW?.and MorganK whats CG,, thats short hand for Computer Generated isnt it?

and Finga thanks for spelling it out, you said IceAge not IA.

anyway carry on guys, im just noting despite some efforts on the weekend, there is still no hole in the ozone at Viccie Point and i am a skeptic trying to prove the doomsayers right,

[finga]

you guys are speaking in code now, Morgan are you from South Australia, i only thought South Australians could speak like that?

So far we have , and just on this page,

CAGW
CG
SST
CC
CS
CO2

whats CAGW?.and MorganK whats CG,, thats short hand for Computer Generated isnt it?

and Finga thanks for spelling it out, you said IceAge not IA.

anyway carry on guys, im just noting despite some efforts on the weekend, there is still no hole in the ozone at Viccie Point and i am a skeptic trying to prove the doomsayers right,

Oh come on now Mike. IA is inseminated artificially not to be confused with artificially inseminated
CAGW....dunno but sounds contagious or it sounds like something a crow (the bird not the person) would say
CG....dunno but GC is known as a green cockup
SST...a Mitsubishi Lancer
CC...something on top of my email thingo's
CS...A Toyota from years ago. Usually A Corolla or Corona
CO2...that's carbon dioxide.

And you forgot Pinhead the PhD which is short for Pinhead the Polite, happy drunk??

Anymore??
Oh, back up towards the top Timi said OK.
That's short for every-thing's okky dokky. Why isn't it OD??

[PinHead]

LOL finga..I was a sleepy drunk oin Saturdya night..but i was a good boy this year..only had 5 or 6 bottles of wine..not the 7 or 8 of last year.

[FNQCairns]

What global warming??
We were thinking about lighting the fire tonight.
It's been chilly the last few weeks and to think summer is just around the corner.

Is this global warming supposed to make rain or dry it up??

Thats a good question, i think both actually, although preferably not at the same time in the same place (they may argue this), still..... the cult can and has already for 20+ years bent the scientific method to whatever media release depth of opinion they want.

I think also it's believed to both kill trees and make them grow, drought and flood, heat and cold, rain and snow, cloud and sunshine, cyclones and the doldrums and of coarse every single "climate change" possible in between

MMmmm talk about having a bet every single way possible...what a future proof business plan they have!



Anyone for a Scientology mental health checkup, at least I think with that cult you either do have the touted symptom or you don't.


Just imagine after the 20 years and the trillions already spent if they had just ONE independently reproducible non junk science research conclusion that could back the prophecy.......